Intelligence

Intelligence is a topic which never fails to create debate. What you will quickly discover is that we all have our own, slightly different, ideas about what intelligence actually is and how it can be tested.

Think of someone you see as intelligent. What qualities do they have which makes you think this? Do other people agree with you? Often it is easy to think of people who we class as intelligent, but very difficult to define exactly what we mean by the word 'intelligence'!

Try the puzzle to the right. In your opinion, does this test intelligence? Why or why not? N.B. If you manage it and join all of the dots in four lines, try to do it with three! It is possible...

The concept of intelligence and IQ

The concept of intelligence is defined as the ability to learn from experience, solve problems, and use our knowledge to adapt to new situations.

IQ (intelligence quotient)

IQ is a measure of intelligence.
An IQ test produces a score which represents a person's mental age (MA).
When used on children the mental age score is usually divided by the
individual's chronological age (CA) because children of the same intelligence
but different ages will not achieve the same score on the test. The quotient is
divided by 100 to remove any fractions. The average IQ is 100 and the scores
are standardised so that about 64% of the population have a score between 85
and 115.

One of the problems with the conceptual definition of intelligence (to the left) is that it is very difficult to measure accurately. This has led some people to suggest that there is also an operational (practical) definition of intelligence: Intelligence is whatever the intelligence test measures.

This tends to be “school smarts” and it tends to be culture-specific.

A short note on 'psychometrics' - the measurement of the mind

Intelligence tests are a kind of 'psychometric' test. Psychometrics is a field of psychology concerned with trying to measure psychological characteristics such as personality, IQ, memory and so on.

Some past exam questions (see the Section B practice at the bottom for an example) have mentioned "psychometric tests". Your answer could include any of the IQ tests in this section, as all of them will try to measure intelligence in a quantitative way (e.g. by assigning an IQ score).

Tests of Intelligence - The Stanford-Binet Test

Originally designed as a means of identifying the most 'feeble-minded' children who would not be suitable for normal schools, this was the first true intelligence test. It calculated IQ using the formula above... so if a 10-year-old child has a mental age of the average
12-year-old, his IQ is 12/10 x 100 = 120. If a 10-year-old child has a mental age of the average 8-year-old, his IQ is
8/10 x 100 = 80.

Here are some sample questions for different ages from a version of the Stanford-Binet test. Hopefully you can manage the age 4 ones!

The original version of the test, published in 1905, had 30 categories, some of which were quite unusual, such as 'Recognition of Food' and 'Repetition of Sentences of Fifteen Words'. As time went on, the best test items and the best categories were identified, and the test was refined. A modern version can be seen in the video below.

This historic test has proven very useful in assessing intelligence in young children up to to young adults.However, David Wechsler argued that the Binet scale items were not valid for adult test-takers because the items were chosen specifically for use with children. In addition, Wechsler believed that "mental age norms clearly did not apply to adults.

What was needed was a more sophisticated way of comparing adult test takers to each other, which Wechsler found by introducing a point-scale, rather than grouping people by age.

Wechsler scales - the WAIS and the WISC

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)

Released by David Wechsler first in 1939 in response to his frustrations with aspects of the Stanford-Binet test, by 1960 the WAIS was the most popular adult intelligence test. It combined a point-scale system, which allowed much easier comparison between individuals. It also was designed to have a fixed average point of 100. These two things allowed much deeper statistical analysis of an individual's results than previously. See the box on the left for more.

An IQ of 115 is 1 Standard Deviation above the mean (in the top 85% of the population), 130 is 2 standard deviations above the mean (in the top 97.75%), 145 is 3 standard deviations above the mean (in the top 99.865%) and 160 is 4 standard deviations above the mean (in the top 99.997%)!

The WAIS-R has a maximum possible reportable IQ score of 150, although people have tried to infer theoretical scores up to about 190. Other IQ tests have reported scores of as high as 210, such as for Christopher Langan.

In common with other intelligence tests, the WAIS has to be updated every ten years or so because of the Flynn effect. You can read about the design of the WAIS and the WISC in more detail here.

Intelligence and standard deviations

Another thing that Wechsler introduced was the deviation IQ in which IQ is measured in terms of standard deviations from the mean score. Given that the population has a normal distribution in terms of intelligence, we can make detailed comparisons between people if we know how many standard deviations they are away from the mean. Click the picture below for more info:

As can be seen in this diagram, Wechsler tested IQ across four different performance areas, each of which had a number of different sub-tests.

The final result is a full-scale IQ, but we can also divide this up into verbal IQ and performance IQ scores.

The British Ability Scales

The British Ability Scales (BAS), first published in 1979, are a set of twenty three tests designed to measure an even wider diversity of mental abilities than are the Wechsler scales. The BAS yields visual IQ, verbal IQ and general IQ scores. See the two resources below for more information

Watch this video, which gives you a clear overview of the BAS test (and offers you a free bag at the end!)

Evaluating psychometric tests of intelligence

Psychometric tests are objective and scientific: everyone gets the same questions and there is no interpretation of the results required from the experimenter.

They are also reliable. Scores on IQ tests tend to be highly correlated to each other, increasing their reliability. For example, the WISC IV correlates at 0.89 with the WISC III.

They allow the predication of future performance (e.g. Newsome et al, 2000). This has many useful applications in the real world, for example streaming in schools, job selections and so on.

The tests are often accused of being ethnocentrically biased. They are tested on Western samples and measure 'Western' concepts of intelligence. They also may use words or materials that are most familiar to Western individuals. All of this makes it far more likely that Western people will score more highly on the test, without necessarily being more intelligent. See the assignment below on 'IQ tests and ethnocentric bias'

Although the tests are mostly valid and reliable indicators, they should only be used as an indicator of ability, rather than as a definitive rating system... BUT THIS CAUTION IS OFTEN IGNORED IN THE USE OF THE TESTS. The tests are not valid enough to make very small scale discriminations of intelligence, but sometimes they are used to do just this, with hugely important consequences for the individual. See the assignment below on 'Atkins vs State of Virginia'

Labelling is a major potential problem for IQ tests. One bad score on a test could lead to children being labelled as unintelligent, potentially damaging their futures.

Two useful graphics illustrating the use of reliability assessments in psychometric testing. Above is how test-retest reliability could be calculated. Plotting a correlation of scores between the first and second test can give a correlation coefficient. The diagram below shows the acceptable range of these to conclude that the tests are reliable. Click both to enlarge.

How would you score this answer in an intelligence test?

Assignment 1 - IQ tests and ethnocentric bias

This map shows IQ scores worldwide. Click to enlarge.

Ethnocentric bias reversed!

The difference between the IQ scores of different races has been a hugely controversial area of research for the last 100 years or so. Look at the map above. Can you think of any reasons other than intelligence that could explain the pattern shown?

Research the opinions of Arthur Jenson, especially in relation to the 'Headstart' program in America. Write half a page summarizing his position, and then another half a page expressing your own opinions on the matter. This review will be a good starting point.

If you want to know how it might feel to take an ethnocentrically biased IQ test, have a go at this 'Chitling test' on Aiden Sammons' website. This test was especially designed for black Americans of the 1970s. You may not be as street as you think you are...!

Assignment 2 - Atkins vs the State of Virginia

Research the court case of 'Atkins vs the State of Virginia'. This is a great example of how much faith people place in the absolute validity of IQ tests to make tiny discriminations (e.g. someone who scores 70 is definitely 'more intelligent than someone who scores 69), which is not what IQ tests are designed for. In this case, tiny changes in IQ score had huge implications for the defendant!

1. Produce a summary of the case2. Explain what you think this shows about IQ testing3. Do you agree with the law using psychometric testing to determine whether someone is considered fit for punishment or not? Explain your answer.

Assignment 3

Re-read the section above, then complete the following questions from memory:

(a) Explain, in your own words, what is meant by the term ‘psychometric test’. [2](b) Describe one type of psychometric test used in education. [6](c) Give one strength and one implication of psychometric tests. [6]

Bullet point 2 - Theories of intelligence

Theories of intelligence: the basic debate

The basic debate surrounding different theories of intelligence is whether intelligence is one, single entity, or made up of a number of separate parts. The three theories we will cover occupy different places in this spectrum.

The Factor-analytic approach

Factor analysis is a mathematical technique for reducing a complex system of correlations into fewer dimensions. This allows us to understand complex systems of correlations.Cattell (1971) used a factor analytical approach to suggest that since all aspects of intelligence are positively correlated to each other, they may well be related to each other.A positive correlation between lots of different aspects of intelligence (which Cattell found) might suggest that they are all parts of the same thing, an underlying general intelligence.

Diagram illustrating how different 'types' of intelligence might all be a part of one single 'general intelligence'. Click to enlarge

Correlations, factors and general intelligence

Factor analysis can seem very complicated at first, but the idea behind it is quite simple. We don't need to go into the maths (thankfully), so all that you need to understand is what they theory is trying to show, and how it reaches the conclusions it does

Correlations show how closely two things are related to each other. A positive correlation indicates a close relationship between two things.

If results in two different tests are positively correlated (e.g. scores on a Maths and English test), then this suggests that they are related to each other.

Cattell's conclusions

From his factor analysis of the relationships between the different skills associated with intelligence, Cattell concluded that intelligence is just one thing - it is unitary.

In other words, a person who is mathematically intelligent is statistically also more likely to be good at English, music and so on.

Evaluating the factor-analytic approach

Positives

Very scientific as it uses objective, quantifiable measurements (e.g. test scores and correlation

Supported by large amounts of scientific data

Objective and unbiased

Negatives

Gardner, and humanistic psychologists, would both argue that doing large-scale statistical analyses of people's intelligences ignores each individual's unique set of talents.

Reductionist - all our numerous skills and unique talents are reduced to a single 'general intelligence'.

The theory reifies intelligence (see below for a definition and discussion of this)

The tests used to measure IQ may be vulnerable to ethnocentric bias. See the 'ethnocentric bias and IQ tests section' above for more.

Reification

Reification means treating an abstract concept like it is a real, tangible thing. Cattell's theory reifies intelligence as it suggests that intelligence may be a single, real, measurable factor (unlike some other theories of intelligence).However there are ethical and practical issues in applying a reified concept of intelligence to real life. If we assume that intelligence is a single, real and clearly measurable thing, then we might begin to make intelligence an important part in our judgements about the world (in selection for jobs or in criminal trials, for example), but this may not be a valid thing to do! The case of Atkins vs State of Virginia (see above) is a good example of the problems with reification. The consequences of this are huge! Literally life and death in some cases...

Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences

"It is not how smart you are; it is how you are smart..."

Howard Gardner (pictured right) is the author of a contemporary theory of intelligence known as multiple intelligences (MI). This is completely opposed to the ideas of Cattell et al that intelligence is one single entity. For Gardner, we have eight separate kinds of intelligence.

The Multiple Intelligences theory proposes that we have several independentmental abilities that allow a person to solve problems, create products that are valued within one’s culture. In other words, different types of intelligence are not related to each other. We can be good at one skill without it being more likely that we are good at other things as well.

Gardner also stressed that intelligence is defined within the context of culture, so what is intelligent for one culture may not be so for another.

Gardner's eight categories are shown below. Click the picture to enlarge. Take a test to find your own MIs here.

"We are all intelligent... it's just that our intelligence looks different from person to person"

A classic multiple intelligences statement... We all have special skills and should be judged by them rather than in comparison to other people.

Julie Wise at Serandip defines the MIs as follows:Linguistic intelligence - refers to an individual's capacity to use language effectively as a means of expression and communication through the written or spoken word (Examples: poets, writers, orators, and comedians. Some famous examples include: Shakespeare, Virginia Woolf, Abraham Lincoln and Walt Whitman).Logical-Mathematical intelligence - refers to an individual's ability to recognize relationships and patterns between concepts and things, to think logically, to calculate numbers, and to solve problems scientifically and systematically. (Examples: mathematicians, economists, lawyers and scientists. Some famous examples include: Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger, and John Dewey).Visual -Spatial intelligence - refers to the capability to think in images and orient oneself spatially. In addition, spatially intelligent people are able to graphically represent their visual and spatial ideas (Examples: artists, decorators, architects, pilots, sailors, surveyors, inventors, and guides. Some famous examples include: Picasso, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Leonardo DaVinci).Musical intelligence - refers to the capacity to appreciate a variety of musical forms as well as being able to use music as a vehicle of expression. Musically intelligent people are perceptive to elements of rhythm, melody, and pitch (Examples: singers, musicians, and composers. Some famous examples include: Mozart, Julie Andrews, Andrea Boccelli and Leonard Bernstein).Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence - refers to the capacity of using one's own body skillfully as a means of expression or to work with one's body to create or manipulate objects (Examples: dancers, actors, athletes, sculptors, surgeons, mechanics, and craftspeople. Some famous examples include: Michael Jordan, Julia Roberts, and Mikhail Baryshnikov).Interpersonal (Social) intelligence - refers to the capacity to appropriately and effectively communicate with and respond to other people. The ability to work cooperatively with others and understand their feelings (Examples: sales people, politicians, religious leaders, talk show hosts, etc. Some famous examples include: Bill Clinton, Ghandi, Oprah Winfrey).Intrapersonal intelligence - refers to the capacity to accurately know one's self, including knowledge of one's own strengths, motivations, goals, and feelings. To be capable of self-reflection and to be introverted and contemplative are also traits held by persons with Intrapersonal intelligence. (Examples: entrepreneurs, therapists, philosophers, etc. Some famous examples include: Freud, Bill Gates, and Plato).Naturalistic intelligence - refers to the ability to identify and classify the components that make up our environment. This intelligence would have been especially apt during the evolution of the human race in individuals who served as hunters, gatherers, and farmers. (Examples: botanists, farmers, etc. Some famous examples include: Charles Darwin, E.O. Wilson).

Evidence for the theory

Gardner used case studies of famously talented individuals in different fields (see the examples in the descriptions above) as evidence to support his theory.

He also used the example of autistic savants, such as Kim Peek (pictured left) as individuals with amazing talents in certain specific fields who lacked basic abilities in other areas.

What do you think about this evidence? What are the strengths and weaknesses of using case studies such as this to support a theory?

Another important piece of evidence for Gardner is the cross-cultural evidence that a variety of skills celebrated by different cultures. Different cultures emphasize different intelligences.

For example, in his book, Frames of Mind, Gardner discusses the high spatial abilities of the Puluwat people of the Caroline Islands, who use these skills to navigate their canoes in the ocean.

The importance of cultural context when looking at education is also highlighted in this article by Robert Sternberg.

Evaluating Multiple Intelligences

Positives

High levels of face validity. The theory seems to match our experience of the world where some people have totally different sets of skills to others.

The theory is not culture bound, and so avoids the criticism of being ethnocentric.

The theory has proven very easy to apply (presumably because of it's simplicity and face validity) and is now widely used in businesses and schools worldwide. Obviously this is only a good thing if the theory is a valid and useful!!

Negatives

Very few scientists accept the claim! There is very little scientific evidence to support the idea of totally separate intelligences. As we saw above in the Factor Analysis section, the evidence suggests that different types of intelligence are all related to each other.

The use of case studies as evidence is not convincing. These are often unique people (especially savants!) who may not berepresentative of the population as a whole.

Also, without careful testing, it is not clear if Gardner's case study examples actually had skills in many other areas as well - which would be evidence against his model.

Many psychologists have criticised the categories as being vague and unclear. It is not obvious why there should be eight categories (why not 3? Or 46?) or why they should be the ones Gardner chose and not other ones.

Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of Intelligence

Robert Sternberg's theory occupies some of the middle ground between the two opposing theories that we have seen so far.

Sternberg disagreed with Gardner that we have multiple intelligences, and instead argued that they should be classed as talents or abilities.

Like Cattell, he argued that intelligence was a general quality... but Sternberg felt that it could be divided up into three mainabilities.

Sternberg's analytic/componential intelligence is very similar to the sort of intelligence that IQ tests would measure - involving logical reasoning, working memory and abstract processing.

The contextual/practical subtheory highlights the importance of the environment and cultural variation. Intelligence here is the successful adaptation to the environment. This could be assessed by asking people what is intelligent or stupid in their culture. In the west this might involve problem-solving or social competence but different results might be expected in different cultures.

Evaluating the Triarchic Theory

Positives

The theory provides a middle ground between other ideas: it still sees intelligence as a general thing, but it allows us to analyse components of it separately. This is useful for analysing the skills of individuals accurately.

The contextual/practical subtheory stresses cultural variation in intelligence, so the theory seems less ethnocentric than Cattell's version.

Negatives

The theory seems too inclusive. Almost anything could turn out to be intelligent (e.g. any one behaviour may be useful in at least one context even though generally speaking the behaviour may not be that useful elsewhere.)

The theory seems descriptive. It describes the components of intelligence without helping us to understand about the structures and processes that contribute towards it.

Assignment 4 - test your memory

Have a go at this section C, 6 mark question from memory

3 a). Describe one theory of intelligence (6)

Ideally you should be able to write one of these answers (about half a page) for each of the three theories above.

Goleman's theory of Emotional Intelligence

"The ability to perceive emotions, to access and
generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and emotional
knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote emotional and
intellectual growth."Mayer
& Salovey (1997)Daniel Goleman would argue that there are some questions that regular theories of IQ and intelligence can't satisfactorily answer.

Why do some people just seem to have a gift for living well

Why the smartest kid in the class will probably not end up the richest

Why some people remain buoyant in the face of troubles that would sink a less resilient soul.

What qualities of the mind or spirit determine who succeeds?

The Five Components of Emotional Intelligence:

1. Self-awareness – the ability to know one's emotions, strengths, weaknesses, drives, values and goals and recognize their impact on others while using gut feelings to guide decisions.2. Self-management – involves controlling or redirecting one's disruptive emotions and impulses and adapting to changing circumstances.3. Social skill/relationship management – managing relationships to move people in the desired direction4. Empathy/social awareness - considering other people's feelings especially when making decisions5. Motivation - being driven to achieve for the sake of achievement.

The first four of these are represented in the picture to the left. Motivation acts separately over the top. You should recognise Goleman's definition of motivation as being very much an example of intrinsic motivation. That makes sense, given that much of the rest of the theory also links to humanistic ideas of education.

Evaluating emotional intelligence

Positive

There is some indirect evidence that the abilities encouraged by EI theory may be helpful. For example, a lot of recent research has focused on the benefits of resilience. See here and here, for example.

Again, you could argue that it is good to take a more holistic view of intelligence, away from the reductionist theories of Cattell et al.

Negative

1. Is it really ‘intelligence’, or just an example of an ‘ability’? Like Gardner, is Goleman simply redefining ‘intelligence’ as something totally different (a definition which other psychologists do not agree with)?

"[Goleman] exemplifies more clearly than most the fundamental absurdity of the tendency to class almost any type of behaviour as an 'intelligence'... If these five 'abilities' define 'emotional intelligence', we would expect some evidence that they are highly correlated; Goleman admits that they might be quite uncorrelated, and in any case if we cannot measure them, how do we know they are related? So the whole theory is built on quicksand: there is no sound scientific basis." – Michael Eysenck

2. Does EI have any predictive validity? We know that IQ is strongly correlated with future success. Is EI as useful for making predictions? No! There is no relationship found between academic and work success and EI. See Newsome et al (2000)for one of a number of research articles on this. This study compared the predictive validity of EQ with that of IQ... so it is very useful for evaluation!

3. Problems with self report measures. Most EI tests rely on self-report. You know the problems with these!

4. Goleman's model of EI has been criticized in the research literature as mere “pop psychology” (Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). In other words, it is a popular idea that is not supported by actual research evidence.

Creativity as an alternative to intelligence

J. P. Guilford and the Development of ‘Creativity’ During World War II, psychologist J.P. Guilford developed tests that selected certain individuals to enter a pilot’s training program. His interests on isolating different types of thinking for different tasks continued after the war as he sought to understand human intelligence and talent. His work led him into researching IQ tests, and he soon hypothesized that these tests did not measure creativity – an unpopular belief during the middle of the last century. In fact, for most of the 20th century, psychologists believed that IQ and creativity were linked: a high IQ meant high creativity, and conversely, a lower IQ meant lower creativity. Guilford disagreed and this led to him trying to find a test to identify and measure creative thinking. Following Guilford, from the 1960s until today, a proliferation of creativity tests claiming to measure creativity or identify creative individuals have proliferated.

How many uses can you suggest for this object? Can you make it over 20?

Use the test rules and scoring on the right to test yourself using Guilford's 'alternative uses test'. Now test your family and friends so that you can compare the results. What score do you come up with?

Guilford's 'Alternative Uses Task' - a test of 'divergent thinking'

Test takers list as many possible uses for a common object, such as a cup, paperclip, or a newspaper. Scoring is comprised of four components: originality, fluency, flexibility, and elaboration.

Originality is based on each response compared to the total amount of responses from a specific group of test takers. Responses that are given by 5% of the group are unusual (1 point), responses that are given by only 1% of the group are unique (2 points).

Fluency scores relevant answers.

Flexibility is based on the difference of categories.

Elaboration is based on the amount of detail given in the response. (i.e. 0 = a brick as a bed versus 2 = a brick used as a bed for a child’s dolls when the child is playing outside)

Evaluating creativity as an alternative to intelligence

Positives

AGAIN (just like for MI and EI), you could argue that it is good to take a more holistic view of intelligence, away from the reductionist theories of Cattell et al.

Negatives

AGAIN, is it really ‘intelligence’, or just an example of an ‘ability’?

AGAIN, creativity seems to be a less effective predictor of future success than IQ does, so it seems to lack predictive validity.

Creativity and alternative uses in everyday life - 'Lifehacks'

More of these brilliant examples of modern day creativity and alternative uses here and on the LifeTricks website. The BPS digest have some research-based tips for increasing your own creativity here.

Assignment 5 - test your memory

Have a go at this section C, 6 mark question from memory

3 a). Describe one alternative to intelligence (6)

Ideally you should be able to write one of these answers (about half a page) for each of the three theories in this section.

Problem solving as an alternative to intelligence

When trying to solve problems we will often use heuristics: rules of thumb to deal with a problem, sometimes based on information easily available in memory. 'Educated guesses' or 'common sense' are both examples of heuristics, for example. When we don't have the full facts, somethimes the common sense solution seems the best one we can choose.

Look at the puzzle to the right. What strategies, or heuristics, would you use if you were asked to solve this problem?

Below are three heuristics that could be used when faced with certain kinds of problem:

The Philatelist My sister has six red stamps and three blue ones. In her collection, seven stamps are from Mexico and six stamps are from France. One stamp is purple and it is not from Mexico or France. Two of her Mexican stamps are red and one is blue. Two of her French stamps are blue and three are red. How many stamps does she have?

Means End Analysis

A means-end chain. Click to enalrge

A well-known heuristic tactic is called means/end analysis. The process requires the identification of stages that exist between a current situation and the achievement of a goal and then making changes that will reduce the difference between the current state and the goal state.

Planning strategies

An example of another planning strategy: trial and error

Means-end analysis is an example of a planning strategy, but there are other planning strategies that can be used to solve problems. One example is trial and error, where large numbers of different solutions are tried repeatedly until one works. Another might be analogy, using the solution to similar problems as a model for a new problem.

Backwards searching

In some cases, it helps to work backward from the solution. "Working backward" allows a person to solve a problem by assuming that they have already solved it, and working backward in their minds to see how such a solution might have been reached.

For example, you may well be planning your university entry... In planning for college using backwards searching, a student first chooses the university and imagines that they are already studying there, then determines what the college's entrance requirements are and then plans for all of those to be met, and so forth.

Practising problem solving strategies

Which strategy would you use to solve the following problems? Have a go at them and see if they work!

The Handshake - At a party, everyone shook hands with everybody else. There were 66 handshakes. How many people were at the party?

The Missing Dollar - Three students checked into a hotel and paid the clerk $30 for a room ($10 each). When the hotel manager returned, he noticed that the clerk had incorrectly charged $30 instead of $25 for the room. The manager told the clerk to return $5 to the students. The clerk, knowing that the students would not be able to divide $5 evenly, decided to keep $2 and to give them only $3. The students were very happy because they paid only $27 for the room ($9 each). However, if they paid $27 and the clerk kept $2, that adds up to $29. What happened to the other Dollar?

The Chicken and Egg Problem - A chicken farmer has figured out that a hen and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half. How many hens does the farmer need to produce one dozen eggs in six days?

The Chicken and Leg Problem - A chicken farmer also has some cows for a total of 30 animals, and the animals have 74 legs in all. How many chickens does the farmer have?

Positives - notice anything familiar?!

AGAIN (just like for MI and EI), you could argue that it is good to take a more holistic view of intelligence, away from the reductionist theories of Cattell et al.

Negatives - notice anything familiar?!

AGAIN, is it really ‘intelligence’, or just an example of an ‘ability’?

AGAIN, problem solving seems to be a less effective predictor of future success than IQ does, so it seems to lack predictive validity.

End of section essay writing exercise - section B

Have a go at both parts of a section B question on intelligence and education. You're welcome.

2 (a) Describe what psychologists have discovered about intelligence. [8](b) Intelligence is often said to be what intelligence tests measure. Evaluate what psychologists have discovered about intelligence and include a discussion of psychometric testing. [12]

You should know what you need to do on these questions by now. Refer back to previous sections if you need a reminder.

Generic mark schemes are given below. Read them carefully before you start writing and make sure your essays fulfill all the requirements. Please submit your essays through the form on the home page.

Section C Practice

As you should know by now, Section C requires you to answer 1 question from a choice of 2. The questions will ask you to apply what you know to a new scenario or area.It has two parts; one 6 mark recall question and one 8 mark application question.

For example: 4 You are a teacher who is suspicious about traditional methods for assessing intelligence. However, you are keen to produce a test to assess the intelligence of your class.

(a) Suggest a procedure that could be used to test intelligence without using traditional test methods. [8](b) Explain the psychology on which your suggestion is based. [6]

The first question allows you to be creative. There is no single right answer. All you have to do is give practical and specific ideas for how you might implement the theory you have picked into the scenario they give you. About a page should be a good length.

The second question is a straightforward recall question. This is the longest question you will get which could focus on just a single theory. You need to write about half a page, so a simple revision check is to make sure that you can write half a page of description about every idea/theory/study that is specifically mentioned in the specification.

Have a go at the questions above. Please submit your essays through the form on the home page.

Revision

The great IQ debate

Create a dialogue between Cattell, Gardner and Sternberg in which they discuss their theories with each other. Make their criticisms of each other as detailed and as scientific as you can, but also make it entertaining!

We will record the debate using cartoon characters and I'll put the best one on here.

Extension

Do good school grades predict future success?This blog post not only summarises the many issues with trying to answer this complex psychological question, it indirectly points out many of the limitations of scientific methods in the real world! In a world that is much messier and less controlled than a lab, things are rarely simple...